Republicans want a civil war. Especially while they are in power and control the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump promised to deport 100 million people.

There are only 52 million foreign-born people in the US.

Only 14 million of them lack documentation.

Who do you all suppose make up the difference in terms of who will be deported?

How do we know how many actually lack documentation ? Isn’t it unknowable if they entered illegally and just stayed ? Its one of the most disturbing things about open borders.

Yes if you do not have proof of citizenship and party affiliation when you are arrested you are illegal. This is why ICE and republicans are able to deport Americans citizens. There are no constitutional rights. Those days are over.

Well that’s only if detained. What about all those illegals in country not detained, it’s an unknowable number given it was open border for years.

Keep the illegals, get rid of ICE agents hired after 1/20/25. That would be a huge net good for the country. Hard working people trying to make a better future versus the otherwise unemployable sociopathic slave catchers and murderers.

This is right up trumps alley. Create a problem and then solve it by reversing his own decision.

Wrong

The illegals are a net good for America, we should give them a path to cotizenship. ICE is bad. A lot of the agents are going to jail, anyway, and then we have to pay for their care and feeding. At least undocumented people work for a living.

Why bother having a border at all? It’s just too much friction to the illegals who are a net benefit.

Oh no you going to cry? You will not be able to murder US citizens?

Can you address the point of the post, instead immediately going to an ancillary hyperbole ? Would the left just rather ignore the border as far as who enters, just pass them all through ? So, no BP at all.

Can you address the fact that we can have a border and NOT devolve into a police state? Why are you okay with ICE murdering citizens just to get people with brown skin away from you?

I get it, you can’t answer. That’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do, why are they so worried about the midterms? I like Amanda Nelson's take that we've been in a US cold war since Newt Gingrich. I sincerely doubt there will be actual guns, since the capitalists wouldn't like that.

Most likely, the first step is a soft secession. States will not send taxes to Washington. Payroll processing is done in state.

But it will be interesting to see how the MN officials respond to the subpoenas. If they all say "F off" I can imagine this DOJ using the threat of force.

And then what? The MN State Patrol and Federal LEOs squaring off?

But, that's what MAGA is missing. The force is deeply unpopular with voters--they just have to look at polling. At the 2025 state/local elections. They do that at their own risk. They're just incompetent idiots who pretty much screw everything up. Sure, they've made some cash, but that party is coming to an end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do, why are they so worried about the midterms? I like Amanda Nelson's take that we've been in a US cold war since Newt Gingrich. I sincerely doubt there will be actual guns, since the capitalists wouldn't like that.

Most likely, the first step is a soft secession. States will not send taxes to Washington. Payroll processing is done in state.

But it will be interesting to see how the MN officials respond to the subpoenas. If they all say "F off" I can imagine this DOJ using the threat of force.

And then what? The MN State Patrol and Federal LEOs squaring off?

This comes up from time to time here. States don’t pay federal taxes, nor are they anyway in the process of collecting federal taxes from individuals. Your employer sends it directly to the Treasury. So, there no way states can “not send taxes to Washington.” They are not in the loop, and the tax is owed by the individual - not the state.

However, if you as an individual want to refrain from paying your federal taxes, you should do so. If fact, get all your friends to join. You’ll get away with it - for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do, why are they so worried about the midterms? I like Amanda Nelson's take that we've been in a US cold war since Newt Gingrich. I sincerely doubt there will be actual guns, since the capitalists wouldn't like that.

Most likely, the first step is a soft secession. States will not send taxes to Washington. Payroll processing is done in state.

But it will be interesting to see how the MN officials respond to the subpoenas. If they all say "F off" I can imagine this DOJ using the threat of force.

And then what? The MN State Patrol and Federal LEOs squaring off?

But, that's what MAGA is missing. The force is deeply unpopular with voters--they just have to look at polling. At the 2025 state/local elections. They do that at their own risk. They're just incompetent idiots who pretty much screw everything up. Sure, they've made some cash, but that party is coming to an end.

You see they do not care about what is popular or unpopular with the voters. Why do you think they will allow elections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do, why are they so worried about the midterms? I like Amanda Nelson's take that we've been in a US cold war since Newt Gingrich. I sincerely doubt there will be actual guns, since the capitalists wouldn't like that.

Most likely, the first step is a soft secession. States will not send taxes to Washington. Payroll processing is done in state.

But it will be interesting to see how the MN officials respond to the subpoenas. If they all say "F off" I can imagine this DOJ using the threat of force.

And then what? The MN State Patrol and Federal LEOs squaring off?

But, that's what MAGA is missing. The force is deeply unpopular with voters--they just have to look at polling. At the 2025 state/local elections. They do that at their own risk. They're just incompetent idiots who pretty much screw everything up. Sure, they've made some cash, but that party is coming to an end.

You see they do not care about what is popular or unpopular with the voters. Why do you think they will allow elections?

Because there were elections throughout 2025.
Because they’re fundraising for them. Because if they don’t, states will send only Dems to Congress.
Because I don’t obey in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do, why are they so worried about the midterms? I like Amanda Nelson's take that we've been in a US cold war since Newt Gingrich. I sincerely doubt there will be actual guns, since the capitalists wouldn't like that.

Most likely, the first step is a soft secession. States will not send taxes to Washington. Payroll processing is done in state.

But it will be interesting to see how the MN officials respond to the subpoenas. If they all say "F off" I can imagine this DOJ using the threat of force.

And then what? The MN State Patrol and Federal LEOs squaring off?

But, that's what MAGA is missing. The force is deeply unpopular with voters--they just have to look at polling. At the 2025 state/local elections. They do that at their own risk. They're just incompetent idiots who pretty much screw everything up. Sure, they've made some cash, but that party is coming to an end.

You see they do not care about what is popular or unpopular with the voters. Why do you think they will allow elections?

Different poster than you responded to.

I think we’ll definitely have elections. Dictators generally have elections to present a facade of legitimacy. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea all have elections, as did the USSR. There may only be one name on the ballot, the counting may be rigged, there may be imminent threat of violence to voting the “wrong” way, but there are still “elections”.

The real question is whether the elections in America will actually remain free and fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama was very strict about border security and deportation to the point that border crossings hit a record low during his administration.

That record has been crushed by Trump.

No it hasn’t. Obama deported more by a long shot and he did it without the chaos

Border crossings. Reading comprehension?

How do we even know what the crossing numbers are today?

They keep track. It’s what they do.

Not any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama was very strict about border security and deportation to the point that border crossings hit a record low during his administration.

That record has been crushed by Trump.

No it hasn’t. Obama deported more by a long shot and he did it without the chaos

Border crossings. Reading comprehension?You need reading comprehension. I was that Obama did it well and cleanly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama was very strict about border security and deportation to the point that border crossings hit a record low during his administration.

That record has been crushed by Trump.

No, it hasn't. The Trump administration is not even hitting Biden's numbers. You people are mindless sheep destroying the country because you are so effing stupid.

Border crossings, that was the Obama record being discussed. Try to keep up.

You need read comprehension. Deportations were brought up as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump promised to deport 100 million people.

There are only 52 million foreign-born people in the US.

Only 14 million of them lack documentation.

Who do you all suppose make up the difference in terms of who will be deported?

Citizens that are brown.

Then Jews
Then Catholics
Then........

Jews and Catholics should be deported if here illegally.

Why is this hard.

Every Normie Democrat I talk to has no issue with ICE deporting illegals.

Progressive weirdos are an online phenomenon.

Trump isn’t even deporting. He’s detaining. There’s a difference. Most of the people ICE have picked up are still in the country.

Obama deported more illegals than Trump

What did Obama or anyone before Trump do with deportees whose home country would not take them back?

The countries took them back under Obama because he didn’t insult nations as s-holes and act like a jackass.

Obama was very strict about border security and deportation to the point that border crossings hit a record low during his administration.

I don’t know why Hillary didn’t make a case that illegal immigration and the border wasn’t an issue in 2016.

Where the Dems messed up is Biden and Kamala decided to reverse the Obama admin policy and actually welcome migrants to the border. This was unprecedented. I think Biden and Kamala even traveled to the border and said America is open to anyone who wants to cross in.

This was idiotic for the Dems to do and as we saw right after the huge wave of migrants decimated Democrat cities and led to Mayor Eric Adams turning on the Biden administration then facing fed investigation immediately after. It became a mess.

Trump was able to win because of it

Pres. Bill Clinton welcomed a lot of illegal immigration. I don't know the numbers, but the PR was not anti-migrant.

So did Ronald Reagan. What your point? Immigration to this country is great. It’s what built this country.

My comment about Bill Clinton's lax border enforcement was responding to the poster above my comment.

(1) It would have been tricky for Hillary Clinton to reference Obama's limited illegal immigration when her husband's policies were expansive. (And why political dynasties are a bad idea.)

(2) Biden/Harris's easygoing policies were not "unprecendented."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We need to protest PEACEFULLY, but at this point, we need to go further and make a point of trying to lower tension.

That is not what the activists want. Particularly what the people training and funding the activists want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prove me wrong. They are doing everything in their power to incite violence within our own country.

What's happening in Minneapolis can happen anywhere. And the Republicans in Congress are just allowing it. The Supreme Court is allowing it. The entire powers in charge right now are allowing it.

They want this

Maybe the left could just let law enforcement do its job and stop confronting them and creating chaos and violent confrontations. If there's an argument to be made, make the argument in court. But of course, they want the violent confrontation and chaos, so it will continue. Hard to see how you conclude that "Republicans want civil war" because of this.

How many court orders has DHS and DOJ violated?

How many laws does DHS/ICE violate on a daily basis?

What you have are Democrat district court judges, who do not have jurisdiction over immigration, issuing orders as part of the resistance. These get overturned eventually on appeal, but the goal is to slow down Trump. Shame on John Roberts for not putting a stop to it.

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus ... or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact."

NP: You know that's not the full statute right? What else is in that paragraph?

"...except as provided in subparagraph (D),"

What does D say?

“(D) Judicial review of certain legal claims {well loook ther actual IS judicial review}
Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”

Then there is this whole section below it titled:”(b) Requirements for review of orders of removal” [gosh that would be a silly section to have if no review was ever allowed, huh? /s]

And then, there that whole section on what the reviewing courts should do if the defendant says they actually are a citizen. Why would that section be there, if as PP says none of it is reviewable by any court? Odd. Especially odd to have it written into the law if infallible ICE never took a citizen into custody illegally. /s

Shall we continue to subection (e), or do you just want to concede that your quote is cherry picked to be grossly misleading and is not the whole statement of the law?

Only appeals courts have jurisdiction, not district courts.

You need to read the entire statute. You are embarrassing yourself and are doubling down on your stupid.

See the Khalil case. The appeals court ruled the district court did not have jurisdiction.

Khalil was never illegal in the first place. He has a green card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama was very strict about border security and deportation to the point that border crossings hit a record low during his administration.

That record has been crushed by Trump.

No it hasn’t. Obama deported more by a long shot and he did it without the chaos

I think part of the chaos and increased quotas is Trump wanting to beat deportation king Obama. He still has not caught up. Obama deported 3 million people from 2009-2016. Many of the things Trump is excoriated for (cages for kids, Muslim ban) actually started under Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We need to protest PEACEFULLY, but at this point, we need to go further and make a point of trying to lower tension.

That is not what the activists want. Particularly what the people training and funding the activists want.

PP you responded to

“the activists”? I think, like most topics, this argument hinges on definitions.

Are activists the No More Kings protesters? The people who film ICE? The people who complain to the elected representatives about their decisions? The people who try to communicate their viewpoint to the public by writing letters to the editor, making Youtube videos, or posting like this on Youtube? I would consider all of these to be activists and think the vast majority of these do want to be peaceful and for everyone to get home safely.

Or by “activists” do you mean the malignant forces that all groups of sufficient size (and due to human nature, that number isn’t very large) tend to have - the bullies, troublemakers, corrupt actors who seek to incite others for personal gain, psychopaths, etc.? From family groups, to classrooms, to office politics, etc., there is always at least one “bad apple” who for whatever reason wants to “spoil the bunch”. In a group as large as a political party, any political party, you can count on there being quite a few. They may be the loudest voices and they may claim to represent the larger group, but their power is dependent on the larger group accepting their leadership.

I am sure there are agitators who wish to provoke trouble, for whatever reason, which is WHY it is vital that the majority of activists not only focus on remaining peaceful but actively try to bring tension down and raise their own voices to counter that agitation. The struggle to balance peace against aggression is not unique to this time. We’ve seen it over and over again, with the witch trials, with the Red Scare, lynchings, and mob riots, being only some of the cases where otherwise normal people allowing themselves to be swayed by negative elements had terrible outcomes. On the other hand, tremendous social change has been accomplished when the vast majority of those seeking change united peacefully as activists for causes like women’s suffrage, civil rights, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, to name a few. Those activists made millions of individuals decisions to resist calls for violence and pursue peace instead.

At this time in history, the country is divided, tensions are extremely high, and there are those on all sides who just want trouble, regardless of which group they may claim to represent. That is why I am pleading with activists that for their own safety, the success of their goals, and the country itself, they must actively pursue peace. They must not only determine to remain peaceful themselves, but reject and denounce calls for violence, and seek at all times to lower tension and promote understanding and cooperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We need to protest PEACEFULLY, but at this point, we need to go further and make a point of trying to lower tension.

That is not what the activists want. Particularly what the people training and funding the activists want.

The invention of the “paid liberal activist” delusion is really one of the most interesting events of the last couple of decades. I really think it’s the idea that you can invent some organized group that’s paid to do what they do to help you reconcile with the fact that your ideas are evil and unpopular. Their egos can’t take it, so they invent a boogeyman.

“Clearly it’s not me my my ideas that are wrong, it’s THEM.”

Who is them?

Anyone convenient.

Scientists, Somalis, Soros, etc.